Although there is some research that supports the notion that eye movements can indicate visual and auditory (but not kinesthetic) components of thought in that moment,the existence of a preferred representational system ascertainable from external cues (an important part of original NLP theory) was discounted by research in the 1980s.
So how come Thom Hartmann is telling us about ‘preferred representational systems’ and reading external cues for us?
One thing I hypothesize about NLP is that it is one of the (perhaps lucrative) ways to produce people who say ‘the word is not the thing’ but cannot distinguish word from thing. Certainly I classify Thom Hartmann among these, after hearing him hint at a belief in what I understood to be Roger Penrose’s theory of ‘I’m a total nutjob with no clue whatsoever’ (that is, Penrose’s theory that ‘consciousness’ is some kind of subatomic structure). Maybe Hartmann was alright as an NLP-based counselor, anyway, when he was doing that kind of work. Anyway, has anyone looked into his latest book, ‘Cracking the Code’? The funny thing is that I don’t consider Hartmann an especially good communicator, with his diversions into tangential subjects, and the way he compliments the callers at the end as if he were giving a dog a pat on the head, but maybe I’m just listening incorrectly and should read the book.
(In any case it’s good to have these liberal talk radio folks on the air and streaming on the Internet. I’ve been a listener since AAR day one, completely abandoning my interest in Minnesota Public Radio. With the result that I am much, much more ignorant these days about local issues. There had to be a downside.)